- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24053-DB MFA No. 32 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2025 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE, 1ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ARCADE, N.R. CIRCLE, H.N. PURA ROAD, HASSAN-573 201. REP. BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL. NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHIVANNA S/O. LATE NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. SMT. USHA S. W/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24053-DB MFA No. 32 of 2025 3. GIRISHA S. S/O. SHIVANNA, . AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT ANJANEYA PURA VILLAGE, KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 128. 4. EJAZ PASHA, S/O. SHAIK DAWOOD SAB, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT. M.M. ROAD, NEAR ALTHAB HOTEL, ARASIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103. (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO.KA-13-C-7816). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.11.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.468/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.32,21,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24053-DB MFA No. 32 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) This appeal is by an Insurer calling in question the Judgment and Award dated 07.11.2024 in MVC No.468/2023 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Member, Addl. MACT, Hassan [for short 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal, by the impugned Judgment and Award, has granted the first to the third respondents [the claimants] a total sum of Rs.32,21,800/- under the following heads: Sl. No. Compensation Heads Compensation Amount 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.29,80,800/- 2 Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 3 Towards medical expenses and transportation of dead body Rs. 91,000/- 4 Towards loss of consortium/estate Rs. 1,35,000 /- Total Rs.32,21,800/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24053-DB MFA No. 32 of 2025 2. The claimants are the parents and a younger sibling of Ms. Dhanalakshmi [a 17-year-old], who has died because of the injuries suffered when the goods vehicle bearing No. KA-13/C-7816 [the Insured Vehicle] dashed against the deceased, the second respondent’s bike and an electric pole in the vicinity of a choultry at Kodaramanahalli on Hassan- Arakalagudu Road. The Tribunal, while answering the Issue on whether the claimants prove that the accident was because of the negligence of the driver of the Insured Vehicle, has answered that the accident indeed was because of the negligence of such driver. 3. The Tribunal has awarded to the claimants a sum of Rs.29,80,800/- towards loss of dependency taking the deceased’s notional income in a sum of Rs.14,750/- providing for addition towards future prospects at 40% and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses applying the multiplier of 18. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24053-DB MFA No. 32 of 2025 Tribunal has also awarded a total sum of Rs.91,000/- towards transportation and medical bills, apart from a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- towards loss of consortium. 4. Sri D. Vijayakumar and Sri Vijay Kumar T., the learned counsel for the parties, are heard on: Whether there must be any interference with the Tribunal's finding on the negligence and the entitlement to the compensation. 5. Sri. D. Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that this Court must hold that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the negligence on the driver of the Insured Vehicle, but he cannot really refute the claimants' case, as found in evidence, that the deceased and the second respondent were standing on the footpath just after the choultry [where the second claimant worked] when the driver dashed against them and the electric - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24053-DB MFA No. 32 of 2025 pole. As such, the finding on negligence cannot be interfered with. 6. On the quantum of the compensation, Sri.D.Vijayakumar submits that admittedly the deceased was only a 17-year-old school going girl and the Tribunal could not have deducted 1/3rd of the national income and the deduction towards personal expenses should have been 50%. As against these submissions, Sri Vijay Kumar T canvasses that according to the Schedule evolved for settlement in Lok Adalat for the claim petitions arising out of accidents in the year 2022, is Rs.15,500/- but the Tribunal has taken a far less amount [Rs.14,750/-] and therefore the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. 7. Sri. Vijay Kumar T also canvasses that the deceased's parents are not educated, and she was supporting them and the younger sibling who is aged - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24053-DB MFA No. 32 of 2025 only 16 years and therefore dependency is established. In rejoinder, Sri. D. Vijayakumar submits that the income as per the schedule for settlement in Lok Adalat adopted by the Courts is only when employment is shown without proof of actual income and that in the present case the deceased was admittedly a girl was only 17-year-old and pursuing her education. 8. These rival submissions are carefully considered. The rule on deduction towards personal expenses when the victim is unmarried is deduction of 50% of the income, and if the deduction has to be any less, the onus must be on the claimants to show that they depended entirely on the unmarried deceased. In the present case, even according to the claimants, the second claimant [the mother] was working as an assistant in a choultry, and they also do not dispute that the first claimant is an earning member being a farmer. Therefore, the claimants - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24053-DB MFA No. 32 of 2025 have failed to establish complete dependency on the deceased. As such, the deduction towards personal expenses must be one-half [½] and not one-third [1/3]. 9. On behalf of the Insurer, it is argued that this Court, because the deceased was 17 years old, cannot take income at Rs.15,500/- as with an unskilled person when there is no proof of actual income. This Court must observe that the Insurer has not brought on record anything to show that the deceased, being 17 years old, was completely immersed in education. In the absence of some particular evidence, it cannot be reasonably opined that the deceased was not working; especially when the parents of the deceased are from that stratum of the society where not every youngster perseveres in education and they mostly focus on earning a livelihood. This Court must opine that it will be just - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24053-DB MFA No. 32 of 2025 to take such income as is taken in the case where employment is proved but not the actual income. 10. The loss of dependency must therefore be re-computed taking the income at Rs.15,500/- per month and deducting 50% towards personal expenditure of the deceased retaining the other parameters. When the loss of dependency is so computed, it would be in a sum of Rs.23,43,600/- as against the sum of Rs.29,80,800/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The computation of loss of dependency with such parameters will be as follows: The Computation of Loss of Dependency will be: Details for Computation of Loss of Dependency Monthly Income Rs.15,500/- Addition towards Future Prospects 40% Rs.6,200/- Monthly Income + Future Prospects Rs.21,700/- Annual Income Rs.2,60,400/- Deduction Towards personal expenses 50% Rs.1,30,200/- Multiplicand [After Deduction towards personal Expenses] Rs.1,30,200/- Multiplier 18 Loss of Dependency Rs.23,43,600/- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24053-DB MFA No. 32 of 2025 The computation showing the difference in the computation by the Tribunal and this Court is thus: Description By the Tribunal By this Court Loss of dependency Rs.29,80,800/- Rs.23,43,600/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Medical expenses and transportation of dead body Rs.91,000/- Rs.91,000/- Loss of consortium/estate Rs.1,35,000/- Rs.1,35,000/- Total Rs.32,21,800/- Rs.25,84,600/- In view of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The appeal is allowed-in-part modifying the Tribunal's impugned Judgment and the Award dated 07.11.2024 declaring that the claimants are entitled to Rs.25,84,600/- [as against Rs.32,21,800/- awarded by the Tribunal] with interest at 6% per annum - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24053-DB MFA No. 32 of 2025 from the date of petition to the date of deposit. The apportionment of the compensation shall be as directed by the Tribunal. [B] The amount in deposit in this appeal is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE SA ct:sr